Engaging Mormon Apologetics

[_MrStakhanovite]

Those are just linguistic descriptions- adjectives are not things- "blue" is not a thing or a property it is a color.

That is what I mean in this case, just abritrary words we came up with to describe experinces.

[_mfbukowski]

Those are just linguistic descriptions- adjectives are not things- "blue" is not a thing or a property it is a color.

That is what I mean in this case, just abritrary words we came up with to describe experinces.

I am a late Wittgensteinian- have you read Philosophical Investigations- that is where I am coming from in this area

Metaphysically I am a Whiteheadian- but you can't mix metaphysics and philosophy in a single discourse or it causes a big mess.

So now we are discussing philosophy imo- it would be a different discussion if we were doing metaphysics

That would be the bit about the river which changes and never changes- it's two kinds of discourse- like poetry and science- different objectives

[_MrStakhanovite]

I don't understand the dichotomy you've made between Metaphysics and Philosophy, since I see Metaphysics as a branch of Philosophy. In my understanding, we have been discussing epistemology only, and since we started this 20 questions I am making you endure through, haven't attempted to discuss Metaphysics.

Do you self identify as a Phenomenalist? That basically means you reduce physical objects to just terms of experince (or if you like, perception). So far, that is what it sounds like you have been saying.

[_Darth J]

I would just like to note that MrStakhanovite fears to mention one Christian apologist whose arguments are more than a match for MrStakhanovite's earthly wisdom: Kirk Cameron.



Let's see if your sophistry can withstand this, Dr. Philosophy!

http://www.wayofthemaster.com/

[_mfbukowski]

I don't understand the dichotomy you've made between Metaphysics and Philosophy, since I see Metaphysics as a branch of Philosophy. In my understanding, we have been discussing epistemology only, and since we started this 20 questions I am making you endure through, haven't attempted to discuss Metaphysics.

Do you self identify as a Phenomenalist? That basically means you reduce physical objects to just terms of experince (or if you like, perception). So far, that is what it sounds like you have been saying.

Well if you were into linguistic analysis and showed one of your profs some Whitehead, he would kick you out of class. Or show Bertrand Russell some Sartre and you will have the same result.

I guess I am a phenomenalist on that definition- but again- I avoid taxonomy because it causes category errors.

[_mfbukowski]

I would just like to note that MrStakhanovite fears to mention one Christian apologist whose arguments are more than a match for MrStakhanovite's earthly wisdom:

I actually ran into this guy in real life and he started witnessing to me and I think I tore him up.

He actually left in a huff, speechless. He hangs out here in so california- he must live here, and he goes out on street corners etc.

[_MrStakhanovite]

I would just like to note that MrStakhanovite fears to mention one Christian apologist

All you have to follow is a four-step process, or what Kirk Cameron and his partner in evangelism, Ray Comfort, call 'The Way of the Master.'

Folk: This is the typical reasoning and argumentation from the person on the street. I put Way of the Master in this category, and the typical presentation of Pascal's Wager (note: Blaise would think most people who use his argument absolutely demonic) and the loaded questions about going to heaven and hell. Bearing a testimony and talking about miracles you've seen and how God has changed your life for the better gets lumped in here too.

[_MrStakhanovite]

I guess I am a phenomenalist on that definition- but again- I avoid taxonomy because it causes category errors.

Awesome, I won't try to box you up in it just yet. But that really general definition just cleared a lot up for me. Thanks for the exchange tonight!

[_mfbukowski]

I guess I am a phenomenalist on that definition- but again- I avoid taxonomy because it causes category errors.

Awesome, I won't try to box you up in it just yet. But that really general definition just cleared a lot up for me. Thanks for the exchange tonight!

Ok
enjoyed it- wife wants the computer!

To be continued I am sure!

[_EAllusion]

I think Ray Comfort gets more flak that he deserves - at least from most religious people. His "banana" argument is notorious for its bumpkin reasoning. I've seen it made fun of all over the place by religious and nonreligious alike. But its core argument isn't at all different from other design arguments many more people think are oh-so-serious and need to be addressed. Really, his main flaw relative to his peers is not knowing how to make his arguments sound sophisticated. Maybe if he dressed up the banana in Bayesian reasoning...